Matthew Ed Moran

I don't disagree that there may be better options for the non-sociopath than joining the police force. In terms of choosing a career, the idea that sadistic and nihilistic people may be drawn to the police (as they are drawn to any agency which lacks the accountability the private market requires) is something to consider seriously for anyone who values their safety and happiness. In general, market facing institutions will tend to be comprised of more empathetic and trustworthy people, because in the market participants at least have to submit themselves to the desires of the consumer. That requires a degree of empathy that may attract more empathetic and negotiable people; while an institution which is not accountable to market forces, is to some extent designed for the lazy, sadists, sociopaths and narcissists to hide out. Even if they are in the minority, it is something to consider if you want to have good relationships in the workplace and have a sense of security and reliability in your fellow employees. In some areas the police forces may be more trustworthy and divided up of generally good people with noble intentions, however this is likely to be different on a case by case basis, and what is important to remember is that though people can act against the incentives of an institution, that does not change the fact that the incentives driving state institutions are different and that will have some effect on the people who join these institutions, even against their own will as they are legally obliged to perform actions that they may not be comfortable doing. While it may not be a violation of the non-aggression principle to put someone in jail for smoking weed (I'm going to make this case), it still may keep one restless at night thinking of the effects jailing will have on this person, such as an increased likely-hood of sodomy, and over time this may have profound negative psychological effects, if these types of occurrences cannot be avoided. If you can find yourself a niche in the police force to create a positive force and avoid engaging in actions that make oneself questionable in the eyes of his own conscience, then that would seem to be the best option. If specific functions in a society, such as dispute resolution and determination of property rights, are monopolized or banned by the state, then any actions performed under this monopoly cannot be considered the initiation of force. The reason is because without knowledge of what would happen in the absence of such a monopoly, it cannot be proven for certain that certain property requirements (such as banning smoking and prostitution in a privately owned area) would not be threatened with force as a clear notification of participation. I am not saying this does not make arresting someone for smoking pot in their own home illegal moral, but because the nature of the situation is of monopolized coercion, then technically it cannot be said that the non-aggression principles is being violated, because property is in a state of being un-owned, and therefore it is extremely complicated to decipher when an act is literally the initiation of force, like shooting someone in a dispute would be without an institutional obligation to do so. If some functions of the police are necessary because they are banned for private citizens, then any actions which may require force to be used are in a state of uncertainty regarding whether they are moral or immoral. Taxation as a concept violates the non-aggression principle, but if man is born into a society with a state and there is no possibility of changing this situation that is actionable (of course we can work to remove the state over time, but there is no guarantee of even a marginal improvement towards this goal in one's lifetimes, let alone at any given moment when others are benefiting from state privilege and thereby putting others at a material and existential disadvantage in society), then he cannot be considered immoral if he defending himself from what would be a worse situation that is the result of state privilege being in the hands of someone other than himself. That is a technical consideration, and there are many caveats. I am not convinced of the benefits of turning the state into something other than what is has been historically designed to do for any sustainable degree of time because of the incentives that inevitably make corruption seem appealing to the base instincts of even the seemingly best of men (though I think some men of character have the capacity to hold power - I would not see myself being corrupted as maybe the typical human might be because of my deep awareness of this fact). That said, it is important to be clear about this, because if we consider those who are using state privilege to defend those who want relative freedom in their hearts and have proven so throughout history (I am thinking of those people who are committed to western values) as immoral, then we are in effect handing power over to those who do not care about morality at all, who not only do not believe in the possible virtue of the state, but who directly want to use the state for the opposite of virtue and are explicit in their goals and in their lack of conscience towards accomplishing their goals. It is worse to have no standards, then to have standards but fail to meet them, because the latter will face emotional consequences that will be negative when they relinquish their values.

You've got to be able to see that the media is going to get more hysterical and verbally abusive as the election nears. This is typical and predictable of the mainstream media. As for Trump being "thrown," I don't see how that is the case. And the media has been piling on every opportunity they have.

If you click on your username in the upper left of your screen to bring up your user menu, and then you click on "manage ignore preferences," you should be able to type in any members name and chose whether to ignore their chats, posts, and private messages.

Since CNN has like ten different articles all unfavorable towards and a new poll where Hillary suddenly is up like 10 points on him, I'm just going to assume in reality Trump must be doing really well that they feel motivated to do all this.

Mike just addressed this. Perhaps it doesn't seem to you like he addressed this, but he did by bringing the discussion to a focal point: that of immigration. D. Trump specifically garnered support rapidly from the American people in droves because of his anti-political correct stance on immigration, and because of his credentials and uniqueness which differentiate him from any current or recent candidate, and from perhaps any candidate in history. It is not hyperbole to say D. Trump is a historically unprecedented figure at least in American history, and to whatever degree, that is why he is enriching public discussion and invigorating support from a population that has been becoming increasingly apathetic in regard to politics and the survival of western values. There is a reason why a guy like Romney who was fairly conservative did not have nearly the impact Trump is having. If D. Trump can put an end to or severely curtail immigration, then I'm not sure why anything else matters in itself. Despite whatever minuses or negatives, Hillary will obviously be much worse from any rational account of the facts. If you don't get that, then maybe you should look up some of her statements intending to "obliterate" middle eastern countries, or her seizures that she passes off with a smile. The women is so incredibly unhealthy that for all I know she is a female reincarnation of Hitler. Suffice it to say, I'm really scared of the possibility she could become president - I think for good reasons - almost to the point that I think electing D. Trump and electing anyone other than Hillary are equally serious and separate issues that are tangled because of how things are playing themselves out.

It's almost as if you don't even watch/listen to the show.

This post is so dark I needed to use a flashlight to read it. When I did read your dark words the inside of my mind went pitch black and I fainted. Luckily an illegal immigrant ran out in front on me to close my computer screen. He now he lies motionless on the floor before me, and I am left only with a tiny, intricate scar resembling a skyscraper below my forehead, just between my eyes. Damn you logic-based people I will have my revenge!!!

Turnips. You have NO reason to eat any other vegetables. You don't preserve yourself by using magic marker because magic marker is erasable.

dsayers this is still not an argument. You quoted one line out of about 6 paragraphs I wrote which contained evidence and reason, and you responded with a non-argument. Unfortunately, you do this so often that I can't take any of your posts seriously and I rarely read them.

not an argument

Sam Harris is a complete blow-hard. It's tempting to like him (maybe) because has some slightly libertarian positions, but when you're judging someone it's really important to judge their character and courage so you know they aren't just spouting propaganda and are only correct by chance when they are. With Sam, the latter is the case. Sam Harris has said it is "not far from true" that Hillary is the most qualified presidential candidate ever and that Donald Trump "basically knows nothing about the world" and is possibly the least qualified candidate ever. Sam Harris says incredibly arrogant and condescending things without facts and evidence fairly regularly. The guy is a hack.

Post moved because it is more of a personal monologue. Rise of Globalism, Death of Culture by Stefan is very important too

He wasn't attempting to repeat what you said. He was providing additional information. By your logic, everyone who doesn't reply on your terms is straw-manning you. Please do not poison the well, guy.

Also, paying taxes enables more state coercion than not paying your taxes, or voting. So if there is a criticism, it has to be levied against paying taxes more than voting. I would also add that since a single vote isn't going to alter the outcome, then voting for anyone in particular is not that important, but that influencing public opinion about the political process is. By telling people not to vote, or by offering them only sentimentality, I truly believe we're not offering them anything at all. This insight about what it means to actually influence society towards anarchy makes me think that in some fundamental ways, none of us are anarchists unless we are effecting change towards anarchy, no matter if we acknowledge the NAP, since we already established we cannot logically follow the NAP in a statist society and compete. If we are spreading sentimentality as an end in itself, that is ineffective or harmful, and in that way we are not anarchists in reality. And if a statist is providing technology on the free market or providing wealth to relatively peaceful people, then he is moving the needle towards anarchy whether the ideas in his head are consistent or not. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (not so much anymore though) may in fact be statists, but they probably have done a lot of good for the cause of anarchy. Many great people have been on the show, many great conservatives, are doing a lot more for anarchy than so-called anarchists who don't have the same public outreach. By that measure I can't rationally criticize a statist for voting or supporting a candidate, when the effects of their actions are doing more for anarchy than I am. There is only truth and falsehood, and actions that promote one over the other. What I love about Donald Trump is that listening to his speeches is like listening to truthful statement after truthful statement, at least compared to the current media establishment. When Stefan uses Trump in his videos, Trump is not the subject. Truth and falsehood are the subjects, and Donald Trump is a very convenient way to spread this information to many new people because of his public figure. By spreading the truth, I think we are by definition a bit closer to anarchy, even if we decide not to contest some truths in some situations, because we prefer some less controversial truths that may be more practical. I believe anarchy belongs in the category of syllogisms, and beyond providing those syllogisms, I think it is harmful to shame or even criticize people to accept them. In close personal relationships I think having the intimacy to reject the initiation of force against one another is essential, but when dealing with the public at large, I'm not sure what weight us anarchists have at the present moment to ostracize or shame anyone for rejecting a syllogism. I think we are better off trying to tailor our message to them in line with the current forms of propaganda that have the most sway in society. This post might not be convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with me, so again I write this in all humility of rejection or any corrections anyone might have.

I have a rebuttal to this. I did it in order, but I also expanded on my thoughts at some points. - It is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral (this is not an argument). If you are saying voting is immoral, you have to show how the literal act of voting is the initiation of force, or otherwise you cannot claim it is immoral to vote, especially if other people are voting. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. It's a description of an act (to eat non-meat) or biological a description of a category of animals, but it is not a moral argument. - You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head, because that would be literally to believe in magic, if by legitimize you mean "make real or valid." (also this is not an argument) - It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless, if voting itself creates a prisoner's dilemma scenario which necessitates that when one person votes, everyone else must vote or else be at a disadvantage in the manifestation of institutionalized aggressive force called 'politics' (which exists whether you vote or not. You cannot say politics has no effect or is one singular mind determining the outcome (unless you have evidence), therefore we all have a very marginal say in the outcome. If you hold yourself to higher standards than your competition, you will lose and become extinct (over time if it happens consistently) - You cannot say voting has no effect and also say people are responsible for the effects of their vote. That is a contradiction. It is very important to understand voting and support are just ideas in individual minds, and are not themselves the initiation of force. They are more accurately considered as huge statistical measurements of the effectiveness of competing forms of propaganda, assuming the voting process is executed (i.e. there is not a fraud in counting, given the stated regulations of how votes are counted in the system which may at times be inconsistent, but are generally formed for a purpose of advantaging one form of propaganda over another) - "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. - No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position, but in a very volatile and non-linear way (i.e. in revolts which are spontaneous but have built over time, or in coups). - Propaganda can theoretically be judged on consequentialist grounds, and saying that no propaganda is syllogistically better than others is not an argument against the empirical correlations in history that can be interpreted with reason and evidence. If a certain group of people in a statist society can agree on a lot of propaganda, then less force is theoretically being initiated compared to a situation in which there was a state and multicultural or biologically manifest disagreement {such as r/K}, and closer to a free society they will be; according to this mental model. Aggression is more clear in reality when one person and another person passionately disagree on whatever course of action is being proposed (more people would rather give out 5 cents than use of their sex organs in the face of the force). When America was founded, a very effective propaganda was inserted into the moral compass of a relatively alike population in terms of race and in high intelligence, and a small state producing the vastest expansion of freedom every in history was produced. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. In their minds at the time, their propaganda resembled something practically more like a free society, even though their conception of government from the view of philosophy is equally as wrong as any other statist propaganda. Philosophy itself deals in 1 and 0s; valid or invalid. But the ways ideas manifest through observable behavior in reality is fundamentally different because of the mind/body dichotomy. If the ideas as they behave in reality create patterns, such as increasing wealth and technology, and these practical effects can disperse information that can potentially increase choice in significant ways, then people in a statist society, not presuming some spontaenous anarchist revelation, can build a base of knowledge over time that will become incredibly consistent, and in the process anarchy will result because propaganda is effectively conquered by empirical invalidation. That's my main argument. I hope it can be of some help if I'm correct or close to correct about at least one point - "Its a desperate act" is not an argument. Thank you for reading I write this all in humility of your rejection if you chose to reject it, or if it is incorrect.

I am not exceptionally skilled but if you are looking into a particular type of business I would be happy to try and help research. I have a lot of free time at the moment, so If you think there is any opportunity in that feel free to shoot me a line or two

Bump. I wish Stefan would do a quick clip on this just so this doesn't go unnoticed

I can imagine a relationship which I might find superficially engaging, but which I was unsure about the virtue and the intimacy of. One thing I fear a lot is being in the dark about how a person feels about my values. The thought that I might enjoy time with someone, but behind my back they might disagree with what I hold most dear, I would find pretty insulting. To continue in the relationship as if that wasn't the case would hurt my pride. That's why in some instances I would be willing to bite the bullet and have that sort of conversation, because the idea that I would be wasting time, when there is only so much time in life that can be spent with people that truly care enough to respect my values in a serious way, would be a sad thing for me. And the idea that I would only think so much of myself as to continue a relationship with a person who doesn't respect my values I find tremendously sad. It's really about protecting my heart and choosing my friends diligently, since life is short after all. If I'm spending time with people who want me thrown in jail for following my conscience, that just seems to me a waste, especially when I have the knowledge to change the world, at worst it's cowardice given that people hundreds of years ago didn't have the opportunities to have honest dialogues like I have today. To waste what took so long to make room for seems a bit careless or devaluing of the progress it took to get where we are today.

The danger, in my opinion, in having personal relationships with statists, is the possibility that you are hoping you have a relationship with someone, when in reality that person would not stand up for you, even in a theoretical sense, to say that they do not support the use of force against you for following your conscience. The against me argument has always been framed as an ongoing conversation, not a one time affair, so there hopefully are plenty opportunities over time to get to the core of what is being talked about, giving the benefit of the doubt that it can be hard to really grasp the non aggression principle, and how the state violates it in its nature. At some point though, what is being talked about is going to be made clear. It might take years and many conversations. But at that point, if your friend is not willing to reject the use of force against you, then you have to decide if that is an acceptable belief for someone to hold in a personal relationship. If someone blatantly does not reject the use of force against me, something I have proven is a consistent belief and a staple of my core values, then engaging personally with them would surely be at odds with my enthusiasm and self esteem.

As far as I'm aware, there is no predictive measure of intelligence that is as broadly encompassing and reliable in its findings as IQ. I recommend the interviews with various experts on the show to hear the data behind this claim. To the extent there are differences that can be scientifically established by IQ tests, and to the extent these tests predict various outcomes better than other tests, then it doesn't really matter what IQ tests fail to capture. The standard is not perfection because that would be impossible with something as complex as intelligence, but rather the standard is how predictive and reliable IQ tests are in measuring such things as job performance, school performance, crime rates, differences in income, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting to mention, compared to other tests of intelligence. It is also important and useful that if you equalize the differences in IQ among the races (compare 100 IQ black to 100 IQ white), then most if not all of the differences among races disappear in terms of income, school performance, and crime. Even if there was nothing that could be done at the present to change IQ, there is still a tremendous potential benefit for society to acknowledge differences in IQ, because then it could be used as the basis to eliminate a lot of extremely harmful government programs in education, and especially among the many detrimental programs and rhetoric which mistake differences in IQ for "white racism." If IQ is a mostly genetic difference, then it is becomes a very hard case to make that white people are responsible for that difference, when it's most likely whites were not even in contact with blacks when they developed these differences).

"The justification is the biggest problem, in my opinion, with knowledge. Because any piece of knowledge needs justification, and any justification is going to be another claim of knowledge. Eventually you will end up getting to a point where you have to admit that you do not know, or you admit that you simply assume that it is the case." This is just bullshit you made up. You use the word assumption and say "all knowledge claims ultimately are founded on assumptions" as if that proves anything. If you want to call something an assumption that's fine, but if you refuse to acknowledge that thing which is an assumption, and it leads you to a self detonating argument, then you're incorrect. You can say I'm incorrect because I'm assuming that which doesn't lead to a self detonating argument, but then you're just a hypocrite because you're holding me to a higher standard of proof than you hold yourself. Fraud.

The president is the cheif executive of the government, which relies on the initiation of force. Yes, any and all presidents' platforms must necessarily violate the NAP by definition of what it means to be president. If you're going to step into a discussion about politics, please bring your consequentialist goggles. The NAP is valid, true, all that good stuff, but it has nothing to do with comparing one apparently aggressive action to another. Is it better to torture 3rd world terrorists, or to bring violent cultures into America? The NAP can't answer this. You have to be a consequentialist on this question.

K selected societies focus on criticism. Criticism is a tool to increase resources in society. If you make bad decisions, you will be ostracized. It's not an insult to ostracize someone. It's based on the reality of their decisions, and the criticism is in pointing that out. A society which is willing to criticize itself is a society which is willing to acknowledge more risks. Criticism is an objective standard. The alphas of criticism are going to be among the most intelligent, credible, experienced, skillful members of society. They are going to get most of the resources in a society which recognizes the objective value of criticism, because that society is going to have a free market to reward these people, and criticism is the most marketable skill. If you're not successful at dealing out or taking criticism, you are going to be at a disadvantage from the point of sexual value in this society, because you are gong to be punished for your inability to acknowledge your objective faults. I personally prefer this, because if someone is going to beat me out at a task or point out how I am inferior, I want it to be for objective reasons - not because they're better at conducting clever noise that has no practical effect on resource gathering in society. Insults tend to be the exact opposite of criticism. Instead of indicating one's ability to gather resources, it convinces females of the males' capacity to withstand their matriarchal humiliation (morally neutral), which propels the men to fight one another for the best females. Physical aggression and a capacity to threaten are what is being selected for in a society which is insulting itself rather than criticizing itself. I think this r/K line of reasoning (and how it either empowers or disempowers men compared to females in the sexual marketplace; K empowers men, R empowers women) is the main difference between whether people insult or criticize. They're either trying to appeal to the females around them via a capacity to dominate physically and be intimidating, or they're trying to appeal to women by their capacity to gather resources by engaging in objective criticism, and ignoring all that which doesn't get their ladies more resources. I am open to criticism of this post because I want to acknowledge my objective faults and improve based on them. But dammit, don't insult me (not that I expect anyone to here) because I can't do crap with an insult, but waste my time and insult back. It's sparring in a way that is detrimental to males, but engaging for females, to the extent the women are being pressured to be R selected. That's why men do or don't do it, I think. And that's why I think these days, you can go on TV and insult someone and the crowd will cheer, but if you argue with someone the crowd will get anxious, until someone proves their dominance by insulting cleverly again. We are becoming more R selected as a society from importing and incentive to create R selected culture.

I can put my big boy pants on and not be offended. I get that it's my choice to be offended. But that doesn't change the fact that Kevin Beal hasn't been refuted. Kevin made about a bajillion arguments and they all go unrefuted, but people have the gall to get bitchy at him when they make one argument, have it refuted, when they expected they were correct, but they really weren't.

Abusive people hate it when you don't meet their expectations. Spontaneous internal combustion. Notice they never have the impulse control to leave the conversation once they notice their expectations aren't being met. They need that persistent needle drip of sadism, so they keep coming back for more and more. I think it's time to cut Tundra off of her sadism binge and ban her.